New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002

Ian Robert WILSON

Hearing: 20 June 2022

At Springhill Corrections Facility via MS Teams

Members of the Board:

Ms M Coleman (Panel Convenor)

Mr A Hackney

Ms M Dodd

In attendance: [withheld] (Case Manager)

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Ian Robert Wilson, who is 70, appeared before the Board today for the first consideration of parole on a three-year seven-month sentence for a range of sexual offending against five victims.  The offending occurred in the 1970s and, in 1992 in relation to one victim.
2. Mr Wilson has one prior conviction, that is also for sexual offending.  That conviction was entered in 1997 in relation to offending that took place in 1979.
3. Prior to the hearing, the Board met with one of Mr Wilson’s victims.  That victim read a lengthy submission to the Board, which he had prepared.  The Board distilled the submission down to three points which we put to Mr Wilson at the outset of the hearing.  Those points were that Mr Wilson received considerable discounts at sentencing for various matters, but the victims had received no discounts for the damage that had been done to them as a result of the offending.  Mr Wilson’s victim also described Mr Wilson as someone who is highly manipulative and who knew how to work the system.  In the victim’s view, this was a matter that directly went to risk, and he submitted to the Board that Mr Wilson would use those strategies, which were similar to the strategies he used when offending, to avoid full responsibility for his actions.  The third point was that he said that he would know that Mr Wilson was truly remorseful if he agreed to speak honestly and openly to the inquiry, and for him to lay bare as part of his contribution the full facts around the sexual offending that was occurring at [withheld] throughout his period of employment there.
4. Mr Wilson addressed those points in the course of the hearing.  He opened by saying that he personally had heartfelt remorse towards his victims.  He said that he wished that his actions could be undone and completely acknowledged his wrong-doing and the effects that it had on his victims.  In relation to risk of further offending, Mr Wilson submitted that his health meant that he had no sexual interest or ability to undertake any sexual acts.  He pointed to the [withheld] assessments of his risk provided for sentencing, which was low, which was reflected also in the static risk assessment in the report to the Board.  He further indicated his preparedness to undertake any treatment and believed that given his low risk of re‑offending that treatment could safely take place in the community.
5. Mr Wilson has been identified to undertake the Short Intervention Programme.  Part of that utility of that programme is that it involves an assessment over a period of time, while it is being completed, which enables treating staff to determine whether or not a programme of greater intensity is required.  Mr Wilson’s Case Manager said that there is no date for his start on that programme and there is some suggestion that the Short Intervention Programmes will no longer continue to be offered.
6. In the Board’s view, that would be most unfortunate, including because this Board records that without having completed that programme and undertaken safety planning, it could not be satisfied, given the duration of the offending and the fact that Mr Wilson did not disclose any of that offending when he was charged with an offence for which he was convicted in 1997, that Mr Wilson is truly taking responsibility for all the offending that he may have been involved in.  For that reason, it would be difficult without the process of the Short Intervention Programme for the Board to reach a view that his risk was not undue.  Likelihood of re-offending is only one aspect of the Board’s test and we also must consider the impact of the harm on further victims, were there to be any.  It is clear from speaking to the one victim that we spoke with today, but also reading the Judge’s sentencing notes, that the harm on these young men’s lives was significant indeed.
7. Mr Wilson was asked whether there were any further victims of his offending.  He delayed before responding.  This issue was a matter that we discussed with him at some length, and it is fair to say that the Board considered Mr Wilson to have been equivocal in his responses.  We also asked him why he did not refer to the 1992 offending in his letter to the Board.  We understood his reply to be that he did not consider kissing a young man on the ear to be a sexual offence.  He did, however, undertake to engage openly with the inquiry into sexual offending by staff at [withheld] by [withheld].
8. The Board at this point is not satisfied that Mr Wilson meets the test for release.  Given the uncertainty around programme interventions, the Board asks that there be a psychological risk assessment undertaken.  That risk assessment should be made available to the Board when it next sees Mr Wilson, which will be in November 2022.
9. Parole today is declined.  Mr Wilson will be seen again in November 2022 and by the end of that month at the latest.
10. For completeness, the Board records there was a very good report from a custodial perspective.  Mr Wilson was described as a minimum-security prisoner who was compliant and created no issues for custodial staff.
11. We also note that the victim that we met with today does not want Mr Wilson to be able to travel to [withheld] on release.  If there are any further victim issues around release addresses, these need to be advised in advance of that hearing.  Mr Wilson wants to return to the [withheld] in Auckland.  However, at present, release to that address also may not be suitable due to its proximity to schools and childcare centres and because of the tenant on a separate dwelling at that address having children who visit him at that address on occasion.